Debunking myths about Kerbals and their 'verse(Post your own myths and debunk them)!

[gutza1]

This thread is meant to debunk certain myths about Kerbals.

1. Kerbals cannot photosynthesize. Photosynthesis would not work for two reasons. First of all, photosynthesis cannot produce enough energy for a cow, let alone a sapient(not sentient. sapient is the proper term.) creature. Finally, photosynthesis is not some magical super energy; it requires resources like nutrients, water and carbon dioxide to work. Therefore, even if Kerbals could photosynthesize, they would run out of carbon dioxide and die.
   
2. Kerbal do not live underground. The Kerbal civilization and cities are not yet implemented.
   
3. Kerbals cannot survive massive falls with their heads. This is a bug.
   
4. Kerbals cannot survive massive temperatures. This is also a bug.
   
5. Kerbals are not extremely stupid. Reckless and crazy yes, but not stupid. If they were that stupid, they wouldn't be able to build rockets.
   
6. Eeloo will not always be a planet. It will eventually be a moon.
   

Edit: Post your own myths and debunk them!

Edit2: I am not suggesting that people should not invent crazy theories for roleplay purposes. I'm just suggesting that people should not make important decisions about kerbals just because the game is in an incomplete state. Please no flamewars.

Edited January 21, 2014 by gutza1

[astropapi1]

6) People like to roleplay.

[Stargate525]

Kerbals are not extremely stupid. Reckless and crazy yes, but not stupid. If they were that stupid, they wouldn't be able to build rockets.

Directly contradicted by the presence of a stupidity meter.

[Mitchz95]

This thread is meant to debunk certain myths about Kerbals.

1. Kerbal do not live underground.

Actually, the description for the Rockomax X200-8 Fuel Tank (specifically the reference to an "Aboveground Pool Company") suggests they do.

Edited January 21, 2014 by sal_vager
Fixed link

[Sirine]

Nice theory. You got your point.

However they are alien, you are not one of them.

Hence your point only stay in Human logical view.

or perhaps, they hatch from egg? They reproduce themselves over time? Or they like the live forever jelly fish in earth? Once the jelly fish get old enough, they reverse their growing, and growing younger instead. Hence, immortality. (True story for the jelly fish, I forget the name).

Edit: Found it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/29/immortal-jellyfish-lives-forever-reverts-stage-life_n_2207583.html

http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/animals/stories/immortal-jellyfish-does-it-really-live-forever

Edited January 21, 2014 by Sirine

[Tw1]

Actually, the description for the Rockomax X200-8 Fuel Tank (specifically the reference to an "Aboveground Pool Company") suggests they do.

I disagree, an above ground pool just means the pool structure is situated above the ground, as opposed to an in ground pool, where the pool has been constructed by digging a hole first.

In ground:

Above ground:

[RSwordsman]

Considering the amount of rocket debris that lands on Kerbin, I think it's safe to assume Kerbals would live in underground bunkers. The KSC is an exception because to a point, it has to be above ground.

But for any "bugs" as reported, I think it's fun to justify them in even the most ridiculous ways until they're altered. Why not have some imagination as to why the game is so goofy?

**The lack of considerations for life support does sort of gnaw at me, but I'm not confident enough yet to try a life support mod. I have a hard enough time just managing fuel.

[Mitchz95]

I disagree, an above ground pool just means the pool structure is situated above the ground, as opposed to an in ground pool, where the pool has been constructed by digging a hole first.

Ah, now I understand. Point withdrawn.

[Climberfx]

I Love Swimming Polls.

[PDCWolf]

Directly contradicted by the presence of a stupidity meter.

Directly contradicted by a dev.

It’s not Kerbal? *shrug* For some reason some people like to think Kerbals are sloppy engineers only capable of producing inherently broken designs held together by duct tape. To them, proposing something prim and proper like a NASA VAB could be built by Kerbals is ridiculous. Well, I disagree. Take a good look at the parts: at the LV-N engine, at 3-man pod, at the landing legs, at ion engine. Those are cleanly executed pieces of impressive technology. Kerbals are indifferent to safety precautions and are very excited about explosions, yes, but they make an impression of extremely capable and very competent engineers. Sure, we know they probably turned a construction crane into a vomit carousel or raced on bulldozers in the process, but I don't doubt for one second they can build buildings similar to real ones, and I don't think it would be out of character for them. Plenty of other stuff like engines is fairly close to how our human rockets look. It's unfair to mistake Kerbals for Orks from a “Certain Universe With 40k In The Name,†or to expect them to build sloppy duct-taped huts.

Overall, I'm convinced the obsession with disasters and perception of Kerbals as worthless engineers only caring about explosions is destructive for the game. KSP deserves much more than being a glorified disaster simulator where rockets falling apart and crews being killed is the prime entertainment and the only expected result. The achievements of players who strive to be successful, who create beautiful, well-engineered, reliable designs, should never be devalued, and the opinion that going to space is impossibly hard deserves to be crushed and disproved over and over again. Kerbals are capable engineers and it's up to the player to utilize their technology well.

In case you are wondering, YES, I love to quote that fragment. Also, I think there should be people submitting (or creating) myths in this thread too.

[spikeyhat09]

1. Kerbals cannot survive massive falls with their heads. This is a bug.
   
2. Kerbals cannot survive massive temperatures. This is also a bug.

by doing such things as surviving massive falls with their heads and surviving massive temperatures, they have in fact proven that they CAN do such things. i think you mean they SHOULDNT survive these things, because if they COULDNT, they WOULDNT

[somnambulist]

Actually, the description for the Rockomax X200-8 Fuel Tank (specifically the reference to an "Aboveground Pool Company") suggests they do.

An aboveground pool is just that -- a pool which isn't sunk into the ground. I have no idea how that somehow suggests that Kerbals

[The Error]

The community thanks you for debunking their roleplay.

I am uncertain as to why you care how others want to justify bugs. They land on their head? Yes, it's a bug. But it's fun to call it an anatomical adaptation. They survive reentry? Again, yes, bug, but I see things as:

Having Fun > waiting for bugs to be patched.

Also, while the Kerbal engineers are brilliant, the stupidity meter only applies to their crews. Thus, Kerbals can be incredibly stupid. At least, the ones you see can be.

(And if they're brilliant, why do the lads in the VAB/SPH sometimes bash their sledgehammers on the floor?)

[Fiddlestyx]

I'm sorry my game-play bothers you.

[Pecan]

But they ARE made of cake: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/66404-FanWork-Fridays-A-Sweet-Occasion

(or you can make cake out of them, whichever you prefer).

[LethalDose]

I'm sorry my game-play bothers you.

Sorry to make it not about you, but I really doubt this topic is about your gameplay specifically, or anyone's gameplay generally. This thread is about people posting on these forums using the absurd points listed by the OP to contradict other posters trying request improved gameplay and features.

This thread is meant to debunk certain myths about Kerbals.

1. Kerbals cannot photosynthesize. Photosynthesis would not work for two reasons. First of all, photosynthesis cannot produce enough energy for a cow, let alone a sapient(not sentient. sapient is the proper term.) creature. Finally, photosynthesis is not some magical super energy; it requires resources like nutrients, water and carbon dioxide to work. Therefore, even if Kerbals could photosynthesize, they would run out of carbon dioxide and die.
   

I agree with you that photosynthesis wouldn't produce enough energy to support a Kerbal, but you're mistaken on the second point. Photosynthesis can and does support life in completely sealed microenvironments. Photosynthesis is the process by which radiant energy (specifically light) is transformed into chemical energy (e.g. glucose). Photosynthetic organisms take in CO2 and H20 and output the glucose and O2. The plants then use the O2 and glucose for energy, [re]creating the CO2 & H2O. So, with a constant supply of light, life can continue indefinitely in a completely sealed vessel. An example of a plant thriving for over 40 years in a sealed vessel is here.

[I_Killed_Jeb]

This thread is meant to debunk certain myths about Kerbals.

1. Kerbals cannot photosynthesize. Photosynthesis would not work for two reasons. First of all, photosynthesis cannot produce enough energy for a cow, let alone a sapient(not sentient. sapient is the proper term.) creature. Finally, photosynthesis is not some magical super energy; it requires resources like nutrients, water and carbon dioxide to work. Therefore, even if Kerbals could photosynthesize, they would run out of carbon dioxide and die.
   
2. Kerbal do not live underground. The Kerbal civilization and cities are not yet implemented.
   
3. Kerbals cannot survive massive falls with their heads. This is a bug.
   
4. Kerbals cannot survive massive temperatures. This is also a bug.
   
5. Kerbals are not extremely stupid. Reckless and crazy yes, but not stupid. If they were that stupid, they wouldn't be able to build rockets.
   

I think cows have a higher metabolic demand than humans...

[LethalDose]

I think cows have a higher metabolic demand than humans...

Cattle require more O2 & calories per time for homeostasis (baseline maintenance of physiologic functions), but they require less resources per time per unit mass. As animals increase in size, their total energy demands increase, but they become more efficient. Larger animals have higher total demands, but lower demands per mass, and smaller animals have lower total demands but higher per mass.

This relationship holds across types (really, orders) of animals. For creatures of the same size, reptiles have the lowest metabolism, then mammals, and then birds have the highest.

Edited January 21, 2014 by LethalDose

[Soda Popinski]

Kerbals cannot photosynthesize. Photosynthesis would not work for two reasons. First of all, photosynthesis cannot produce enough energy for a cow, let alone a sapient(not sentient. sapient is the proper term.) creature. Finally, photosynthesis is not some magical super energy; it requires resources like nutrients, water and carbon dioxide to work. Therefore, even if Kerbals could photosynthesize, they would run out of carbon dioxide and die.

They could have a very low metabolic rate, like reptiles. Every pound of reptile requires about 1/10 as much energy as a pound of mammal. Secondly, the energy output of their sun (Kerbol?) must be much higher than ours, as the Gigantor solar array can provide enough power for those ion engines. The similarly sized arrays on the ISS don't make NEARLY enough power to run such a powerful ion engine (real ion engines pale in comparison to the thrust from stock KSP ion engines).

[Kasuha]

Kerbal photosynthesis is the leading theory explaining Kerbal longevity and endurance in space flight. Evidence is strong as they can withstand long periods of time without any nutrient or energy supply except for sunshine, their skin is apparently green, their most common activity is sitting or standing with occasional slight head or limb movements and they don't undergo any other physical activity unless provoked and even in that case they restrict it to necessary minimum.

To confirm or refute it, though, detailed analysis of Kerbal metabolism would need to be performed. And unfortunately our biological laboratories were so far unable to acquire Kerbal tissue samples. Until then it remains a theory.

[LethalDose]

They could have a very low metabolic rate, like reptiles. Every pound of reptile requires about 1/10 as much energy as a pound of mammal. Secondly, the energy output of their sun (Kerbol?) must be much higher than ours, as the Gigantor solar array can provide enough power for those ion engines. The similarly sized arrays on the ISS don't make NEARLY enough power to run such a powerful ion engine (real ion engines pale in comparison to the thrust from stock KSP ion engines).

OR it could be magic!

Do you really not get that this crap is exactly what the OP has an issue with?

[Loerelau]

Kerbals do not glow in the dark and they are not radioactive?

[LethalDose]

Kerbal photosynthesis is the leading theory explaining Kerbal longevity and endurance in space flight. Evidence is strong as they can withstand long periods of time without any nutrient or energy supply except for sunshine, their skin is apparently green, their most common activity is sitting or standing with occasional slight head or limb movements and they don't undergo any other physical activity unless provoked and even in that case they restrict it to necessary minimum.

"The game is in an incomplete state" isn't the leading theory?!

[Kasuha]

"The game is in an incomplete state" isn't the leading theory?!

Come on, you're spoiling all fun

[LethalDose]

Come on, you're spoiling all fun

If you're intentionally posting counter-points for "fun", then it looks a lot like trolling. I don't mind spoiling that.

This is a valid thread with valid points.